EM5, EM5 II, for use with OM SLR lenses

[a._dot]

Shooting two dimenssional work on a wall,

24 shift OM wide enough and other OM's, some wider than the 24.

When tiff's or jpeg's are blown up projected on a 2m x2m panel,

will it have huge difference which body?

 

OK, 2x crop factor meanscfurther away from the subject, but also sharp edge to edge.

Is the mk ll worth the extra money. Pen F, will 60mpxls have that much of a difference?

The old E-P1 focused great with all lenses. The Sony A7 I tried couldn't do live view with old slr lenses: "...lensnot attached properly...".

[Ken Katz]

For static subjects shot from a sturdy tripod, the high resolution (40mp) feature of the E-M5II should produce a

materially better image than using standard resolution on that camera or using the E-M5. Note that the field of

view when using the 24mm lens on any M43 camera would be equivalent to 48mm on a 35mm film or FF

sensor. In my opinion, the additional resolution of the new Pen F is not worth the additional cost (based on

current pricing) compared with an E-M5II. I don't own a Sony "A" series camera, but I have never heard of it

being incompatible with most legacy 35mm lenses. Perhaps there was an issue with the adapter or camera

settings that you tried.

[a._dot]

I used the red highlight/manual focusing aid in the camera, just don't know if it could get a tad better zoom focusing on live view.

Sony is a full frame, nice cam, just not Olympus. I could easily keep the Sony, but always had a thing about Olympus. Ben using the EP

series for 5 years now, familiar with stepoing back with the 24 shift. What they used to say back in the early 90's, that the closer you get

with an slr the better the resolution isn't exactly true with digital anymore, is it? Not sure there. Even though I dig Olympus and had it for 5+,

x2 cf is way further from the subject. What do yoy think. I mean digital full frame vs digital x2 crop, plus Oly 40mmega pixls.

[Ken Katz]

Either with film or digital, I still believe that if your photos aren't good enough, then get closer. A FF sensor is

4x the size (in area) of an m43 sensor, so for resolution, dynamic range, and high ISO performance, FF will

always have a significant advantage over m43. I use m43 because of the size and weight advantage over

larger sensor options, but there will always be an image quality difference and FF will usually have a wider

shooting envelope than m43. Any of the 16mp Olympus cameras will have a significant image quality

advantage over the 12mp m43 cameras, so a new EM-5II will dramatically outperform your E-P1 in a every

way. The high res options are only currently usable for static subjects shot on a tripod, so it is not something

usable hand held. FF or m43; its up to you, your shoulder, neck and back, and your wallet.

[a._dot]

What ever you buy has to do with your wallet. I buy used, but I know I am paying. Thing is,do the 40 mpixl on a tripod of coyrse, shooting

paintings always requires this, outperform the full frame A7 24mpixl, using the same 24mm shift, twicw as closer to the painting? Well the

2x cf also gets closer to the painting, not physically, but sensor wise, zoom wise, and twice as much digitally like in 40mp. Who is the

winner on the same lens, in resolution, detail? I think the adge to edge winning of the 2x sensor isn't that important, but how much is it this

an issue regarding the comparison? I think I've found a better title for the thread? Lens/cam closer, or mpixl size more important-on a good

tripod, with both cams accomodating live view, same iso, same conditions? Interesting test...

[harold_gough]

<p>I bought a slightly-used A7R last week. The first thing I did was to put my OM 24mm shift on it. The two were made for each other. No problem with the lens working with the viewer.</p>

[a._dot]

Yeap

No problem here with the zoom live view either. Found a way to fix it. Magnification is lower than it was on the EP-1. Live view was easier to

focus with on the Olympus. However focusing using the red highlights aid is close to maximum success. Just an Olympus person, that's

all. Tried to become a Sony, but didn'work. If Olympus had a different name I'd still go with the EM5 II, not an epl, not an EM10. Still, I don't

think I am buying the EM5 ll until selling the A7, so I probably won't be able to test to compare. Instictively, I d go with the EM 5 II. Got film

cameras for full frame wide angle shots, including other fl's.

[harold_gough]

<p>I have a favourite test shot for lenses. I go to the end of our drive and take a shot with a house, hedges and a school sign (fine, contrasty detail) in the frame. I then record the technical details in the file name. If you have a suitable view you could takes shots before parting with the A7 and then take similar ones with the replacement camera. Not ideal but quite useful. It is worth doing some blue sky and some overcast shots.<br>

If you wish to check for flare, some subject with a strong light behind it is needed.</p>

[a._dot]

The M8 is better than the A7. But I don't own an EM5vll yet to compare.

The moment I get the Olympus I would have already parted the A7. Could you post some of the tests?